Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article examines the claim that democratic states are justified in restricting access to asylum seekers on the grounds that failing to do so reduces public support for humanitarian refugee policies – referred to here as the humanitarian defence. Drawing on detailed historical, comparative and interpretive analysis of migration policy in Canada and Australia, the author builds on Matthew Gibney’s development of practically guided normative theory to assess cases in which political elites may legitimately enact restrictive policies in response to strong public opposition. Challenging the normative basis of the humanitarian defence, the article engages in a detailed discourse analysis of asylum crises in Canada (1987, 1999) and Australia (1979, 2001). The findings suggest that political elites do not respond to an independently arrived at, and objectively established, public opinion as implied in the humanitarian defence. Rather, political elites play a crucial role in shaping the discourse on asylum seekers and consequently, influence the very “public opinion” to which they claim to be responding. The author concludes that political elites should attempt to foster an environment in which the public accepts international obligations to refugees but accepts that in some cases political elites may be justified in implementing restrictive measures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".